On 2002.08.25 07:38 Andreas Mohr wrote: > On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 08:17:09AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote: > > On 2002.08.18 12:21 Andreas Mohr wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 11:32:54AM -0400, Ian D. Stewart wrote: > > > > After running Wine for awhile, /proc/meminfo reports MemTotal as > > > 32680 > > > > kb. The system performs as if it only had 32 MB of RAM. A > reboot > > > of > > > > the system resets total memory to the proper value. > > > > > > > > My question is: > > > > > > > > 1) Has anybody else encountered this? > > > > 2) Does anyone know what causes this, or better yet how to avoid > it? > > > > 3) Is there anyway to recover the lost RAM short of a reboot? > > > > > > Huh ? This is very, very, VERY strange ! > > > Something like this should never happen. > > > Are you sure it's caused by Wine only, or maybe it is due to > faulty > > > memory > > > instead ? (and thus the board/Linux notices that only 32MB are > useable > > > and resorts to accessing 32MB only). > > > > Well I can't say with absolute certainty that it's caused by Wine, > but > > the system runs without any problems for extended periods of time so > > > long as I don't run Wine, and consistently 'loses' memory when I > *do* > > run wine. > > > > I don't know exactly what's going on. I do know that there appears > to > > be some sort of threshold that is reached at which point the memory > > hiding occurs (e.g., the same issue arises whether I run Wine for 5 > > hours at one shot or for 30 minutes a day for 10 days) and the > > threshold isn't 'reset' until I reboot. > > > > > > > > Again, I'm utterly puzzled when hearing such a story. > > > Or maybe Wine accesses some Linux memory management function in > some > > > way > > > that causes Linux to tamper with the value for some reason ? > > > This wouldn't be the first time that Wine is the only program to > > > reveal > > > some severe bug in Linux memory management... > > > > > > Definitely try upgrading your kernel, too. > > > > I have no problem with upgrading, but I would like to know *why* I > am > > upgrading (i.e., what bug is causing the problem, and how does the > new > > kernel address the bug). To do otherwise strikes me as being > > equivelant to the tendency in the Windows community whenever > something > > odd happens. > *sigh* > You're definitely not of the easy kind of people, are you ? ;-) > A lot of people would just upgrade and be happy in case the bug is > fixed, > but you... :) Guilty as charged ;) > > Well, if you're so eager to learn what the problem is, then I'd > suggest > to get your hands pitch black dirty immediately ;-) > > Find out where /proc/meminfo gets fed with values, then find out which > part messes with the MemTotal value in any way. > > Hmm, arch/i386/mm/init.c/si_meminfo() sounds like a sure winner. > I'd suggest looking for the totalram_pages variable (add logging > whenever > that one gets modified in some way). > OTOH I don't see any place where there is a direct assignment of that > variable. Hmm, where does that variable even get initialized then ??? > (well, probably declaration auto initialization then) > > Oh well, good luck ! ;) Thanks. I'll report back once I know more. Ian _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@winehq.com http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
